SOLEDAD MORADO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE HERNANDO AGUILAR, RESPONDENT.

Morado versus Aguilar

The Case

This is an administrative complaint for immorality and failure to give support, filed by Soledad Morado against Municipal Judge Hernando Aguilar of Baleno, Masbate. It matters to a reviewee for two reasons. First, it shows how a disciplinary proceeding against a judicial officer travels through the Department of Justice, the executive judge, and an investigating judge before it reaches the Supreme Court. Second, and more importantly, it fixes a hard procedural rule: when the respondent dies before the administrative case is resolved, the case is dismissed, because the personal disciplinary liability can no longer be enforced against him.

Procedural History

The complaint was referred by the Department of Justice to the executive judge of the Court of First Instance of Masbate for appropriate action. Executive Judge Abraham Castaneda recommended dismissal, because the complainant, though cited to appear, failed to come and refused to acknowledge the notice of hearing. It appears that the same charges had earlier been ordered dismissed by Judge Pedro Singson Reyes when the complainant withdrew her complaint.

Acting on a further indorsement of the Department of Justice directing a full-dress investigation in view of the gravity of the charges, Judge Pedro Quitain conducted the formal investigation and submitted his report dated December 12, 1972. He found that the respondent had maintained an illicit relation with the complainant while he was the incumbent municipal judge and a married man, resulting in the complainant becoming a mother without being a wife. He recommended dismissal from the service, but, considering that the respondent was soon retiring and must have tendered his resignation as required by the President, he recommended that the law be tempered with mercy and that the resignation be accepted without prejudice to retirement benefits. As to the children, he recommended that the case not be considered terminated, and that the respondent's monetary retirement benefits be withheld if there was a legal way to do so, until the children, through a duly appointed guardian ad litem, could file such action as might be justified. The Secretary of Justice concurred with these findings and recommendations in an indorsement to the President dated January 4, 1973.

The matter reached the Supreme Court as an administrative complaint against the respondent judge. It was there that the Court learned, from a death certificate submitted to it, that the respondent was no longer in the service and had died on April 28, 1974.

Facts

Soledad Morado charged Municipal Judge Hernando Aguilar of Baleno, Masbate with immorality and failure to give support. The charge was that, while serving as municipal judge and while a married man, he maintained an illicit relation with the complainant, and that she became a mother without being a wife.

The complaint had a long and uneven course. It was once dismissed when the complainant withdrew it, and it was again recommended for dismissal when she failed to appear at a hearing. But the Department of Justice, weighing the gravity of the charges, directed a full-dress investigation. The investigating judge found the illicit relation established and recommended dismissal from the service, softened by a recommendation that the respondent's forthcoming resignation be accepted with his retirement benefits preserved, and that the interests of the children be protected.

Before the Supreme Court could act on those recommendations, the respondent died on April 28, 1974, as shown by the death certificate submitted to the Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the administrative complaint for immorality and failure to give support against the municipal judge may still be resolved on the merits after the respondent's death.
• Whether or not the death of the respondent extinguishes the administrative proceeding against him.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It rests on the settled procedural principle that an administrative proceeding for discipline is personal to the respondent and cannot survive him. No provision is quoted here because none appears in the decision text.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court did not reach the merits. Although the investigating judge had found the illicit relation established and the Secretary of Justice had concurred, the Court noted that the respondent judge was no longer in the service and that, according to the death certificate submitted to the Court, he had died on April 28, 1974.

On the second issue, the Court held that the death of the respondent extinguished the administrative complaint. The purpose of the proceeding was to discipline the respondent personally, and that purpose could no longer be served once he was dead. The Court therefore dismissed the complaint, without adopting the recommendations on dismissal from the service or on the withholding of retirement benefits.

Doctrine

An administrative complaint against a judicial officer is a personal disciplinary proceeding. When the respondent dies before the case is finally resolved, the case is dismissed, because the personal liability sought to be enforced no longer exists and no disciplinary penalty can be imposed on a deceased respondent.

The rule applies even where the investigating judge has already found the charges established and recommended a penalty. The findings and recommendations do not survive the respondent's death, and the Court will not proceed to judgment on them.

A Bar candidate should state the rule plainly: death of the respondent in an administrative case abates the proceeding, and the complaint is dismissed.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint against Judge Hernando Aguilar in view of his death.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the death of the respondent abates an administrative complaint against him, and the case is dismissed. Examiners use this case to test whether a candidate knows that disciplinary proceedings are personal and do not survive the respondent, even after a finding of guilt has been recommended.